| >No, it was to assess the facts and see whether the case had merit No, it wasn't. See e.g. the quote from the Magistrates' court judgment above. >The police do not arrest someone on every accusation of crime The Swedish prosecutor had a strong presumption in favor of arresting and charging Assange in this instance, as the court judgments make clear. That was on the basis of the evidence already available. You may not be taking into account differences between the Swedish and US/UK justice systems. Formal charges are brought much later in the Swedish system, as the court judgments explain. The investigation into Assange had proceeded to a stage where charges would most likely already have been filed in the US or UK. The investigation was well beyond the stage where they would have wanted merely to talk to Assange. >By that do you mean Hillary Clinton's repeated statements on how Assange should be dealt with? Clinton has no power to extradite Assange. It doesn't matter what she says. >Additionally, this wasn't a domestic abuse case. Aardin and Assange were having casual sex, not a long term relationship as is typical in domestic cases As I said, it is not uncommon for people who are raped to remain on friendly terms with their rapists. The fact that they were not in a LTR doesn't change that. |